JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant has been convicted on two counts under sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, for selling foodstuff without licence he has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default one month's R.I. and for having in possession at his shop adulterated milk for sale he has been sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default three months' further rigorous imprisonment. 2. Admittedly the applicant has an eatables shop near a cinema house in the town of Kairana in District Muzaffarnagar. The prosecution case was that it was a tea, milk and snacks shop. Also that the Food Inspector on 4-12-1977 at about 4 P.M. took a sample of milk from the shop. The Public Analyst vide his report dated 16-1-1978 found his buffalo milk sample to contain only 4.3 per cent fat contents as against the prescribed 6 per cent. The applicant's case was that the milk was not for sale and that he never sold any milk and only sold tea. The courts below did not accept this defence. 3. The argument about the milk not being for sale was reiterated in this Court but the Explanation to Section 7 introduced by Act 34 of 1976 provides inter alia that for the purpose of Section 7 a person shall be deemed to store adulterated food if he stores such food for the manufacture therefrom of any article of food for sale. Therefore, keeping of adulterated buffalo milk in a tea shop for use in making of tea for sale would be a breach of Section 7 and the stand of the applicant even if accepted to be correct cannot absolve him of the offence. 4. The only other argument was that the sanction to prosecute accorded by the Local Health Authority under section 20 of the Act was vitiated by non-application of mind. This sanction is Ex. Ka. 7 on record. The sanction order has been passed on the report of the Food Inspector which fives full particulars of the offence and mentions that the notice in Form 6, the receipt and the Public Analyst report were enclosed for perusal. The relevant portion of the sanction order itself states that the papers were seen and the prosecution against the applicant was sanctioned. The relevant portion of the sanction order itself states that the papers were seen and the prosecution against the applicant was sanctioned. The Food Inspector has also proved that the papers were placed before the Local Health Authority. Prima facie this sanction is quite in order. I cannot agree with the submission that the omission to mention any facts or the legal provision constituting the offence shows non-application of mind. The fact that the sanction order is on the back of the Food Inspector's report and the evidence of the Food Inspector's prove that the order was passed after considering the material data which in fact is shown by the order also. 5. Coming to sentence P.W. 2 has admitted that the applicant sold only tea and not milk. There is also no indication in evidence of the total quantity of milk at the shop of the applicant. The defence of the applicant that there was about 2 to 2 kg. milk for preparation of tea only may, therefore, well be true. The case is covered by proviso (i) to Section 16(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, I think, the sentence should be reduced to the minimum of 3 months' R.L and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 6. In the result, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicant on both the counts is confirmed but the sentence on the count of storing adulterated milk is reduced from 6 months' R.L and a fine of Rs. 1000/- to 3 months' R.L and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default 1 months' further R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- on the other count shall stand. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody at the earliest to serve out his sentence.